How do federal preemption doctrines affect state-level product liability claims against medical device manufacturers of FDA-approved spinal implants?
Download run
Fan-out diagram
The searches the AI actually ran for this prompt.
SEED QUERY
How do federal preemption doctrines affect state-level product liability claims against medical device manufacturers of FDA-approved spinal implants?
4 real searches · 1 real-search pass
Supreme Court Riegel v Medtronic 552 U.S. 312 2008 PMA express preemption parallel claimsGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
Medtronic Inc v Lohr 518 U.S. 470 1996 510(k) preemption medical devicesGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
Buckman Co v Plaintiffs Legal Committee 531 U.S. 341 2001 fraud on FDA implied preemptionGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
FDA medical device spinal implants PMA 510(k) classification preemption Stengel Bausch StrykerGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
Badge and edge weight = share of passes that produced the query. Hover a query for its intent and routing format.
Query classes
Google's semantic query class for every sub-query: what kind of answer each search is after, simulated vs real.
Classifying 4 queries…
Searches and sources
ChatGPT4 real searches · gpt-6
Supreme Court Riegel v Medtronic 552 U.S. 312 2008 PMA express preemption parallel claims Google ↗
Medtronic Inc v Lohr 518 U.S. 470 1996 510(k) preemption medical devices Google ↗
Buckman Co v Plaintiffs Legal Committee 531 U.S. 341 2001 fraud on FDA implied preemption Google ↗
FDA medical device spinal implants PMA 510(k) classification preemption Stengel Bausch Stryker Google ↗
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. | 552 U.S. 312 (2008) · supreme.justia.com
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.: Federal Preemption of State Tort Law Regarding Medical Devices with FDA Premarket Approval · everycrsreport.com
- NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. BUCKMAN COMPANY, PETITIONER v. PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL COMMITTEE | Supreme Court | US Law · law.cornell.edu
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. | 531 U.S. 341 (2001) · supreme.justia.com
- RICHARD STENGEL V. MEDTRONIC INCORPORATED, No. 10-17755 (9th Cir. 2013) :: Justia · law.justia.com
- Current Topics in Medical Device Preemption · americanbar.org
- MEDTRONIC, INC., Petitioner, v. Lora LOHR, et vir. Lora LOHR, et vir, Petitioners, v. MEDTRONIC, INC. | Supreme Court | US Law · law.cornell.edu
- Margaret Bausch v. Stryker Corporation, et al, No. 09-3434 (7th Cir. 2010) :: Justia · law.justia.com
- No. 11-10076 · ca5.uscourts.gov
Queries
4 queries · click a column to sort
| Query / type | Search | Intent | Query class | Routing format | Cluster | Freq ↓ | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court Riegel v Medtronic 552 U.S. 312 2008 PMA express preemption parallel claims OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 | |
Medtronic Inc v Lohr 518 U.S. 470 1996 510(k) preemption medical devices OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 | |
Buckman Co v Plaintiffs Legal Committee 531 U.S. 341 2001 fraud on FDA implied preemption OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 | |
FDA medical device spinal implants PMA 510(k) classification preemption Stengel Bausch Stryker OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 |